Yeah, but Obama blew the first debate so badly that it's almost like he's thrown the election. Then again, these elections are always really close. Still, that first debate didn't help. I hope he pulls it off because we can't go on living like this: http://youtu.be/xJVhDImLbiM

Perhaps one of the greatest signs that our foreign policy is muddled beyond belief is the fact that both candidates are willing to take us to war with Iran over their nuclear weapons program, but we turn a blind eye to Pakistan. A nation which has roughly 100 nuclear weapons, is absolutely permeated with Islamic fundamentalism, and is one of the only nuclear armed nations in the world with a nuclear first strike policy.

Why one is our enemy and one is our "ally" makes no rational sense as far as I can tell. Am I missing something?

The world is an inane place. Back in the Cold War Pakistan was our ally; and India was not. In fact India was in the Soviet corner. That didn't make any sense either. It should have been reversed; oh well.

What you are missing is that international relations are governed by pragmatism. Each relationship is determined by what the government of the day determines to be in the interests of the United States at that time and place. There is no place for an abstract all-encompassing policy which would determine what the policy should be in any particular situation which might present itself.

Good point on our relationships being dictated by pragmatism. I suppose that still holds true today, the US finds itself slowly divorcing itself from it's unhappy marriage with Pakistan (very slowly) and heading calls for greater engagement and trade with India.

Perhaps an abstract all-encompassing policy is simply not feasible for a global power with such broad influence, but I do wish we could expedite the process of bringing some balance and clarity back to it. Especially when the "war drums" are still beating for Iran and the last decade of semi-pointless war has not come to a close.

I really wish, just for once, that the non-interventionist candidate would stand a chance in our election and end this seemingly never ending cycle of geopolitical hypocrisy.

@GGTom, my father was in the military, stationed in Korea and later in Germany during the Iron-curtain days. He always looked back at the more "simple" times of the Cold war with a bit of nostalgia. Just two competing ideologies and everything in the world could be looked at through the lens of one or the other ;)

Obama might have had a reasonable point about a smaller army possibly being as efficient as a larger, earlier one, or a smaller air force, but fewer ships actually does mean less effectiveness for the Navy, because ships haven't increased in speed the way land and air vehicles have in the past century. In a crisis we don't want to give our opponents a week's worth of preparation time while a Navy ship travels a couple thousand miles because we made cuts foolishly and didn't have enough.

General Comments on the Elections 2012.
1. Put aside for a second your political preference, and answer this: Do you feel unconfortable about this crap of Ohio being the ONLY decider in these elections? Let me be clear, I wholeheartly support the ECV - I think is the fairest system for the federation, but I dont know if it's me, but it feels like almost not voting at all, in any other state that isnt Ohio!
2. Conversely, I suddenly feel immense hope and support of the ECV from the same people that cried foul so much 12 years ago, when Al Gore lost the elections even though he won the popular vote. It just confirms the notion that what goes around, comes around and chickens coming home to roost.So is anyone here for or against the Electoral College Vote ECV or is it applies only when it favors your candidate?
3. I support Israel, whatever they need to do for their country to keep it safe from the baddies, and keep it alive. Fine with me. BUT, does someone remember a time when Israel wasnt the MAJOR topic of our Foreign Policy? The tiny place seems to overlap and dominate EVERY SINGLE debate on FP when we now have a growing and (slow but) prosper immense region that is Latin America to nurture and trade with, a decaying region that has been our ally and provider of our cultural traits and values for long that is Westenr Europe, a new freedom and US loving region of the world that is Eastern Europe (save Russia), an immense democratic freind that is India, and seem to me that all those nations are completely ignored in these awful FP debates... what do you guys think?
4. Im not a tree-hugger, like liberals (who think money grow in trees!) but there are legitimate concerns about climate change and environment protection; there are also skeptics - but regardless of which side you are in, wouldnt it be proper to AT LEAST address the subject during these debates? even if only to show some concern? or what did Obama think that just electing him in 2008 would suffice to "heal the planet and stop the oceans from rising?"
These are my observations from my little corner here in Missouri. I'd like to hear other's insights...

"Put aside for a second your political preference, and answer this: Do you feel unconfortable about this crap of Ohio being the ONLY decider in these elections?"

Kind of. Why is it the only state that's really consequential? Why does it disproportionately produce astronauts? My bets are on the space lizard conspiracy.

Your comments about the foreign policy debates are seconded. There's always reading about the candidates' policies on their websites (Here is Obama's rather blurbish national security issues page on his campaign's website and Romney's main issues page- foreign policy is on the left column) but it's not the same.

Right. Thinks of all the seniors that wont even touch a computer; or youth that has little attention spam or too much "facebooking" to do that wont even take time to watch a full debate, much less to read politicians websites?

No matter what, TV direct, face to face, contact is still the most effective medium to reaching most of the population; at least in this case.

Right. Thinks of all the seniors that wont even touch a computer; or youth that has little attention spam or too much "facebooking" to do that wont even take time to watch a full debate, much less to read politicians websites?

No matter what, TV direct, face to face, contact is still the most effective medium to reaching most of the population; at least in this case.

I do not know who won the debate, of course only naïve would know. Reagan won because he promised fiscal restrains…then created huge deficit that exceeded all the presidents before him combined. Bush (papa) won because he promised fiscal restrains…then created massive deficit and puke on foreign leader. Clinton wan because of humble beginnings…then fool around in the oval office, but balanced the budget he did not promise. Bush (baby) a pacifist, won because he promised (when sober) fiscal restrains…then created colossal deficit, and has failed to act on attacking airplanes for which he was re-elected.

We are really thorough in electing our presidents, including primaries we need almost two years to choose one and pay billions to media “orgasm” but always looking forward for the next deceiving debate spectacle.

We refuse to change the archaic system that was created by good people in absence of proper communication and transportation. Ask me directly if I want to invade Iraq and not via proxy of some feeble mind that we send to Washington.

Ah, yes, little Nicaragua to the south; what an impotent superpower. The only reason Obama is borrowing money from China is because he just can't help himself, besides, China may be the only country dumb enough to buy Obama's brand new $6 trillion dollars of debt.

"The Republican has never sold himself as a foreign-policy expert. For him, this final debate was about projecting adult leadership."

I guess that means, for Romney, adult leadership doesn't have anything to do with foreign-policy expertise. Gosh, I thought the adult leadership of any country requires foreign-policy expertise. If the U.S. elects someone who doesn't even pretend to know anything about foreign policy, if the U.S. elects a child of foreign policy, then the U.S. deserves such a president.

Øbama was automatically excluded (in 2008) from any knowledge of foreign policy, and he certainly has proved a failure these last four years, --especially with his illegal and unconstitutional war waged against Libya.

So you'd rather have libya out of control, and becme a threat to the world? For your sakes I'd be woried for someone like you, not having the slightest clue about priotities. Problems like war in libya, are life threatening, however foriegn policy can be amended and has a lower priority.

"Adult leadership of any country requires foreign-policy expertise" suggests an ironic indictment of the current political selection process. It didn't stop us in 2008 from electing someone who lacked foreign-policy and economic expertise on the whim of hope and promise.

You people did actually see the debate? Obama lost. Was it as dramatic a loss as the first one, no. I think what is happening besides the bias here is Obama is being given wins for not being as bad as he was the first time. Was it close certainly but with ridiculous comments about bayonets and a 9 year old kid statement such as everything he just said is wrong, Obama looked like he was the challenger and one losing at that.

Anyway, as we sit here with a dead ambassador and using film cover ups, various islamic countries falling apart and becoming extreme it is pretty clear the guy who won a nobel peace prize for doing nothing but traveling to countries to say america is at fault, it should have been pretty clear to even the most biased group Obama lost because he has no successes to use except killing Bin laden.

But I suppose with the lib bias in the media and the european desire to have obama, I guess you people would come up with a poll result like this.

"Obama lost because he has no successes to use except killing Bin laden."

I'm inclined to think Romney won on the issues, but I think you're overstating your case a little. Obama has signed 5 trade agreements (which had been in the works since the Bush administration, but still) and started a reasonably successful intervention in Libya. Of course, as regards that last one, the Benghazi attacks show that it could have been better handled by giving the new central Libyan government more assistance in creating security around the country.

I'm inclined to think that pulling out of Iraq so soon and so completely wasn't a good decision, but I'm reasonable enough to know it will play well for Obama. Ditto the 2014 deadline in Afghanistan.

The race may be "deadlocked", except for the fact that we have four dead Americans in Libya including an American ambassador, and this amateur administration still can't tell us what they knew and when they knew it.

If Romney does not expire the W Bush tax cuts, then how does he promise an increase in military funding. It's a scam and next thing is Romney is going to ask you to turn in your social security number. There is no negotiation in Congressional defecit/debt reduction automatic sequestor. There's alot of people currently dependent on the soup kitchen thanks to the subPrime crisis which Obama inherited.

Why not a link to Fox News? The Economist had a list of economist that generally support the President's position. However, they listed caveats. I would never put forward a link to "economists for penguins" if I was supporting the penguin party.

Reason I have left the Republican party - an ever rightward movement away from well reasoned logic based on facts. Climate change just one glaring example.

Bull. Anyone that disagrees with you is part of FOX News. Climate Change is an entirely different discussion than economics; then again maybe not. I have met a whole bunch of watermelon liberals; green on the outside and red on the inside.

But a long,long list of Economist that support Romney is rather tough to counter isn't it?

I think it would be a pity to describe what happened last night as anyone's victory. And if being the most insulting and condescending gives cause to winning the debate, it becomes a greater pity to reward that performance with an electoral victory. Obama has continued to show a sarcasm, discourtesy, and derision that is not appropriate for the President of the United States. His interruptions, heckling, and barbed insults do not suggest a statesman's demeanor.

Obama has criticized the lies and Romney's slippery positions, but there is hypocrisy hearing this from a man who continually rewrites history, blames everyone else, and maintains selective judgement on every issue.

And ironically, the "horses and bayonets" exchange touches an issue of strategic deployment that I could entirely agree with Obama, but he promptly lost the reasoned perspective with the condescending insults about schooling Romney on "things called aircraft carriers", and "we have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines." The condescending discourtesy wastes an opportunity to make a reasoned argument for fiscal prudence.

I think that Obama's style and nasty display is probably a better tryout for the David Letterman show than a return to the White House. I have a hard time viewing the debate as an Obama win.

I think it means one thing to be engaged and eloquent in debating the issues. And it is something completely different to be insulting and demeaning. Obama practiced the latter, and it is not an effective clash of ideas. In fact, I would pose the question that the insults mask a lack of ideas or a fear that the principles and practices have failed. It may evidence a significant character flaw beyond the simple indictment that he's just a politician. Is the exhibition of disrepect and vicious insult an illumination of Obama's own insecure character? Or is it arrogant hubris?

Unfortunately, it fails to measure up to an ideal of the President. And I don't think it should represent a win for Obama.

A little anecdote:
When I moved to US more than 20 years ago, I told the people I was staying with that I needed to send some copies of documents asap; I was asking what was the fastest/safest carrier.

The told me that "there was this thing called Fax..."; I suppose they must have thought that coming from a third world country, we were still hanging on trees like the in the jungle. I got offended and screamed back that fax machines like any other tech product was used worldwide even in poor countries; who were they to teach me what a fax machine was? etc.

Now looking back, I wish I would have had a Mr Romney to show me how to deal and conduct myself in that kind of situation. He was steady, professional, mature. He wouldnt act up like an offended little kid, as I was.

The sequester guiotien is hanging above social and military fund programs. When loosing wheight, work at it from both sides of the equation: exercise (increase tax revenue) and portion size carbohidrates (cut expenditures). Many of the Repubicans have signed pledge, no tax revenue increase--which ties one hand behind their backs. As the Democrats have accepted in principle increases in tax revenue, modest cuts in spending should be satisfactory such that the Congress may never go into sequester.

Another well written and balanced article by Lexington. Sure the partisans on both sides will continue to accuse Lex of bias, but he/she continues to provides cogent arguments and new insights. Even on one's where I disagree, the stated positions are logical and a great starting point for discussion.
Unfortunately I think many posters here (like on other sites) tend not to read the whole article, but rather just see the headline or a snippet here and there to get riled up when it supports/refutes their predetermined views.

No, Romney will win it. The reason I say that is anecdotal but I live in a very Liberal area. Last election I saw so many Obama signs, bumper stickers and posters I couldn't count them all. Florida State University was all-abuzz over Obama-Hope and Change and all that. Reality has now struck. There are few if any jobs for new graduates, and medical insurance for students has more than doubled per Semester from 700 to 1700 dollars; Along with higher tuition and gas prices.

I actually see probably 5x more Romney signs, bumper stickers, etc... than Obama. Generally on FSU's campus the leftist would tear down anything Republican (You know those enlightened Souls who believe in Freedom of Speech-theirs not yours). This election there is hardly a whimper out of them (Obama supporters). I mean what can you point too. Higher tuition, Higher Medical Insurance, Higher Gas Prices, Higher Food Prices, no jobs, and a lot more debt (student and National).

And Levy2008, I read that you've learned your lessons well from Obama. When you lack a record or reasonable explanation, simplify the issue with derision and insult. You condescend with typical simplicity.

This is just my observations from Florida State University's Campus. I maybe full of crap; but I just do not detect anywhere near the excitement level for Obama that I did four years ago. The students are really concerned about costs and jobs. I have never been nor never will be a closet conservative. I have always been and will be an economic and military conservative and a social liberal.

I wouldnt go by yard signs and bumper stickers. Here in Missouri, a state that Romney is winning by 10, and McCain barely won by less than 1 percent, people are abstainging from it. I guess many missurians are scared bc last elections many cars and properties with McCain/Palin signs were vandalized; a first for America.

So it is possible that people not showing signs actually mean they are voting for Obama but dont want to make it publics; although it is very unlikely that republicans would vandalize obama voters...democracy and freedom of political choice is more ingrained in their minds than new generations of (intolerant) liberals.

I wouldnt go by yard signs and bumper stickers. Here in Missouri, a state that Romney is winning by 10, and McCain barely won by less than 1 percent, people are abstainging from it. I guess many missurians are scared bc last elections many cars and properties with McCain/Palin signs were vandalized; a first for America.

So it is possible that people not showing signs actually mean they are voting for Obama but dont want to make it publics; although it is very unlikely that republicans would vandalize obama voters...democracy and freedom of political choice is more ingrained in their minds than new generations of (intolerant) liberals.

To be honest, I live in a small island of Blue surrounded by Red in Florida. I've noticed the same thing that GGTom observed as well. My neighborhood had a healthy proportion of Obama signs the last go around, but I have to drive several blocks to find a single one now. Given the amount of Romney signs I see placed in yards, Obama may very well be a 1 term president.

I'm the odd ball out as I just placed a Gary Johnson sign next to my "HoneyBadger 2012" yard sign ;)

Thank god this wasn't a fair fight. It was like pitting Superman against a common street thug. Oh wait, Romney is a thug. Good riddance. Hopefully, the rest of the election goes down like this: http://youtu.be/xJVhDImLbiM

Chicago Politics are infamous for the Daily Machine. Also as far as it goes, a lot of Illinois and Chicago politicians end up in jail. Obama learned his trade there. Most recently I saw him throw Hillary Clinton and the CIA under the bus in the Libyan fiasco. What a guy; the Buck stops over throw.

Just skim reading, every pro-GOP comment appears to be stupid and/or devious.

If someone were to say, I will vote for Romney because I'm a high earner and I want to keep more of my money, I could respect that. If someone said I will vote for Romney simply because he's the Republican candidate, I would question their capacity to think but less so their integrity. It's the fact that they bullshit you though, whether on purpose or not, that condemns them.

A vote for Romney necessitates a foolish or conniving justification. That’s the very simple truth.

And a vote for Obama is a vote for incompetence. A vote for even greater and greater debt. A vote for slick lawyer type who is driving up energy cost by slick (and stupid) policy decisions. I can reverse every part of your inane comment. A vote for Obama is a vote to grow the food stamp programs; He is after all the food stamp president. I question any Democrat that votes for higher unemployment and greater dependency. Obama seems to be following FDR's policies in 1936. How did that work out; well they all failed.

When I skim read the Democratic comments I can't believe they want this guy who has done nothing but grow the welfare system, the debt and unemployment.

A vote for Obama necessitates a foolish or conniving justification. That’s the very simple truth.

As though Democrats are voting for more debt, higher unemployment, greater dependency. Ugh. And 'a slick lawyer type'; completely arbitrary.

Vote for a party with no plan, with backwards ideological philosophies, hostages to the fucking tea party, focused on the wealthy above all others, saboteurs of progress (the GOP's conduct in congress this last four years is indefensible), host to countless figures who would have your mother or sister keep a child born of a man who would rape her, sensationalists and default capitalists.

If you think any of the above is devious, or even requires a slight distortion of the facts, you’re absolutely deluded. The picture I painted isn’t a parody of the GOP, it’s the GOP in 2012.

I know the Democrats are far from perfect, far from it! That said, at this moment in time there isn't a serious alternative. I you can't vote for what you want, vote against what you don't want. Sad, but hey.

How Israel respect human rights and avoid racism in front of all the human eye, in the world?

The French Foreign Ministry issued a statement condemning the Israeli’s construction plan decision, calling it a provocation in an already-tense context. Paris reiterated its stance that Israeli settlement construction is illegal, “undermines trust-building between the parties, and constitutes an obstacle to a just peace based on the two-state solution.”

British Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt also strongly condemned the plan, which he regarded as ”deeply worrying.” He added that London “has been clear that Israeli settlements are illegal and undermine the possibility of a two state solution.”

When it comes to human rights or respect of individuals rights - Arab & Islamic countries in ME are the last ones to talk about it. First they need to demonstrate these attributes to others - before they lecture us about them.

In regards to "settlements". these buildings are done in the city of Jerusalem, the capital city of Israel. No one has the right to tell another sovereign state whether or not it can build homes in its capital city - Israel is no different.

Think twice. Israelis has bought rich time so much since 1948. Till every Nation in Einstein' relativity, making some faults, some error, then being labelled T-character. Israelis know so much that human is human with some faults. So, Palestine, US, EU in her grip. Great. But for her is U-Turn Law. Although there were happenings in presidential debates.

And the winner is Israel. She really occupies American foreign policy and American values. For me? Not a surprise. I am a working class hero.

The real surprise and the beginning of US consciousness had just seen.

A total 15 church organizations in the US issued a statement to question US unconditional financial assistance to Israel, adding that this unconditional aid will only sustain the status quo of the Israeli 64 year military occupation.

Neither candidate could even mouth a pious statement that it would be nice, good for the economy etc. if Israel and her Near East neighbours could somehow find a way to live in peace and harmony. They risk offending 1.4 Billion moslems and they also made an unnecessary and gratuitous verbal attack on China or another 1.4 billion people.
One American blogger complained "everybody hates us". Less verbal and non-verbal aggression would be a good way to start a healing process.

Israel is a real problem for us in my opinion. Watching the primary debates one would be forgiven for believing that the candidates were running for President of Israel with a wish to strengthen ties with their ally America.

But yet for all the lip service our politicians give about supporting Israel, we truly do them much more harm with our infallible veto support, aid and backing. Israel needs a credible, objective supporter and a simple agreement to sell arms. Nothing less and nothing more. Under the thumb of US backing and with our "turning of the cheek" to many of their own actions, we do more harm to their standing and support on the international stage than ever.

Also, I would note one troubling aspect to our relationship. It's the consummate case of the "tail wagging the dog". So much of our fate in the region (and the lives of our service personnel) is dictated by the whims of Israel, to be dragged into yet another unnecessary war at any time.

I both support and believe in a strong Israel, I have extended family there, but I also believe that Israel can protect itself and is best served by an America that can treat them with more objectivity and sometimes tell them what they need to hear.